Comments on Who's side are you on?

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to Who's side are you on?

posted by Blue_feathers on February 9, 2007 at 8:46 AM | link to this | reply

"....."hey, there's nobody up there....." LOLOLOL

I am going to leave that comment on someone's post someday. Can't wait to see their reaction.

I am really enjoying this post/comments section; it is a terrible day at work and I needed something enjoyable to read.

posted by David1Spirit on February 8, 2007 at 1:17 PM | link to this | reply

Gome

I agree with Moon....I quite enjoyed that expression myself.
Actually, I think it would be kinda funny to see it in action, but I'm sure it would make someone, somewhere, very unhappy.

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on February 8, 2007 at 11:35 AM | link to this | reply

LOLOLOLOLOL  I loved this: "hey, there's nobody up there.....". Love it!!  Love it!! And "Yes, Gome, of course you are always right!!" Loose and casual expression on my part created the wrong impression. MoonSpirit

posted by syzygy on February 8, 2007 at 11:28 AM | link to this | reply

MoonSpirit - that was an entertaining comment - I thoroughly enjoyed it

But are you trying to suggest that I am not always right? - - - just kidding. If anyone ever took the time to ask, one of the underlying life guiding philosophies that I attempt to adhere to is an extrapolation from Buddhism and an amalgam of native spirituality indigenous to the continent that I live on; "all living things have a reason and a right to be" . . . there is nothing wrong with using the word "sacred" when applying it to this philosophy. The unfortunate truth is that while attempting to adhere to this and other similar life guiding philosophies, there are those who are insistent that I must include deference to an omnipotent creator being that they believe exists. Further there are many that are not only insistent that I defer to their God, they would have others live their lives in accordance with their beliefs. I wish it were as simple as saying: "My personal beliefs suit me just fine thank you" but there are realities to existing in a society where the majority of people hold a belief in a traditionally defined God. There are two sets of rules.

Instead of sounding "whoa is me", let me give you a real example of what I am speaking of in there being two sets of rules. There is hardly a day that goes by when someone does not stop by and leave a comment that suggests something along the lines of: "put your trust in God" or "God loves us all" or whatever. I take no offence when this type of comment is left, offence is not intended but could you imagine how it would be taken if I stopped into their comments and left a similar sentiment based on my beliefs? Something along the lines of: "hey, there's nobody up there....."

posted by gomedome on February 8, 2007 at 11:22 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome and Bhaskar,

I’m insane to jump in here. I’m not even posting at the moment and I’m not at all sure that I want to be on Blogit. And yet, here I am jumping in the middle between Bhaskar and Gomedome. I repeat. I’m insane to jump in here. Insane ‘but’, I don’t want to see you two guys fight. I want to see you dialogue. That should be fascinating.

I’m probably going to piss both of you off with what I say. Oh well, ‘no guts, no glory.’ In terms of ‘belief’ (I don’t even like the use of that word) it is clear that I ‘believe’ (really don’t like that word) very much in line with Bhaskar. Who cares? Who gives a shit? Even I don’t care what I believe. My ‘belief’ is only between me and myself. No one else. It is about my relationship with myself – beginning, middle, end.

Gome, I know Bhaskar. He sees all life as sacred (sorry, Gome, for the use of that term but, that is how Bhaskar sees life – as sacred); all life, human, animal, plant, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, Fundamentalist, Muslim; all life (including any I left out.) And while he will not back away from a fight, Bhaskar does not want to fight.

Bhaskar, as for Gome (yes, he is a little bit prickly – maybe he is occasionally quick to see offense when none was intended) – sorry Gome, no offense. Gome gets attacked a lot by religious ‘know it alls.’ I don’t in anyway agree with all of what Gome says – I disagree with much of what he says – again, who cares, who gives a shit. Let Gome say what he wants. I love Gome’s role as an antagonist, a protagonist, a burr under the saddle. He plays his role very well.

Gome points out all of the total absurdities and injustices done in the name of religion. Like Jesus, he exposes religious hypocrisy. Gome's posts along those lines, pointing out the absurdities and hypocrisies of religion can be magnificent. Magnificent! Some of his posts are less magnificent. So what?

If you two guys will get to know each other, I think you can have some truly stupendous dialogue. LOL

I hope you guys will each back off to your corners and cool off. Take a drink of water. Get a rub down. May the best man win!!!

MoonSpirit

 

posted by syzygy on February 8, 2007 at 10:50 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - if you are going to attempt to pick a fight with me, you are

simply going to have to do better than that.

"Where you are coming from" is merely an expression, in this case used to imply that I was not entirely clear what you were saying. (It was not used to refer to your being in transit from one geographical location to another.)  

This is an assumption on your part: "You won't lose anything by listening respectfully, and just because you are sharing yourself doesn't mean you have to convince anyone of anything or change anyone’s mind...." 

How could you possibly know if I am taking in and considering what others are offering but to assume my level of reception?

posted by gomedome on February 8, 2007 at 10:29 AM | link to this | reply

Tell me Gomedome, what does it have to do with your idea as to where I am

coming from? What diffrence does it make to me where are you coming from? A discussion is a discussion. I just want a simple clarification to your stating that well-intentioned but assuming.  They are bad bed fellows. Just these two words.Nothing else.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on February 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, Remember that there can be no 'assuming' in well-intentioned.

And if it is, then your whole assessment of well-intentioned, however well intentioned, is wrong and convoluted.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on February 8, 2007 at 9:48 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - now I have no idea where you are coming from

Though it has been said that I have a combative nature, I have no desire to fight with anyone. The word "but" was in referrence to some of the assumptions that I felt you made in your first comment.

posted by gomedome on February 8, 2007 at 9:44 AM | link to this | reply

SoloWriter - I'm following you now - but don't you think that the

elaboration of your second comment may have clarified your intentions in your first comment?

I absolutely agree that there are some topics where there is only one ridgid position. Child pornography deserves the same degree of tolerance from society as the crime of murder. No argument exists that would have such a crime receive anything but zero tolerance from society.   

 

posted by gomedome on February 8, 2007 at 9:40 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, here lies the difference and the incongruency...

You say that my comment was well intentioned, but you simultaneously also add "but". If you really thought it to be well-intentioned, then but has no place. It is incongruent.  Let us for the next few days, if so desired, fight only on this one word 'But' I am ready

 

posted by Bhaskar.ing on February 8, 2007 at 9:30 AM | link to this | reply

Bhaskar.ing - that is the first comment by you on one of my posts where

I'm saying to myself "I know this guy means well but...."

I don't care if another person on this planet believes as I do. I just want these crazy religious folks not to destroy the one planet we have by continuing to do what they are doing. After that concern, my motivations are as self serving as anyone else. I live in a society where a person can be as disingenuous and duplicitous as is humanly possible but if they profess a belief in a supreme being, they are elevated to a social position above any individual who is inherently honest but does not make that same proclamation of belief. I know you mean well and I am confident that the sentiment expressed in your comment was well intentioned, but you are assuming that I do not take in what others have to share on this site.

posted by gomedome on February 8, 2007 at 9:12 AM | link to this | reply

Gome, it was an example of a situation where you don't bend.

Some things are clear to others as absolutely unacceptable behavior, but the person who wants them to be "open-minded" can't see their reason.

posted by Jenasis on February 8, 2007 at 7:17 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome, here's my take on the subject

Blogit is a real conglomerate of people and ideas, we come from all over the world, we have different religions and different politics, different customs, different skin colors, languages, etc, etc. We also have different problems and illness, sorrows and pains, and loneliness. We are all fighting a difficult battle in some area of our lives. Do yourself a favour and set aside your judgments long enough to read and absorb what someone else is sharing. No doubt they are pouring out their heart the same way you are. You won't lose anything by listening respectfully, and just because you are sharing yourself doesn't mean you have to convince anyone of anything or change anyone’s mind....just give, and leave the result to someone greater who spins the yarn and threads the hearts together.

posted by Bhaskar.ing on February 8, 2007 at 2:26 AM | link to this | reply

SoloWriter - I am completely at a loss as to why you left such a horrible

news story as a comment.

If you are asking me which side I am on concerning the crime described in the news story, there are no sides aside from the perpetrators of the crime versus everyone else. Child pornography is not an issue with pro and anti sides, it is not an issue of debate. It is a criminal activity that destroys its victims. No decent person with a modicum of common sense can possibly think otherwise.

posted by gomedome on February 7, 2007 at 11:00 AM | link to this | reply

Ariala - there is nothing more that can be asked of people than being fair

I like to think that I am the side of sanity as well. I don't much care what people believe, I try to judge them only by their words and actions.

posted by gomedome on February 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM | link to this | reply

Sunnybeach7 - there certainly is an element of the herd mentality in the

example I gave.

I am the same way, I try to look at things in absolute terms without defference to religious beliefs of any kind. I just cannot imagine supporting someone who is clearly wrong about what they are saying or doing simply because they share my beliefs.

posted by gomedome on February 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM | link to this | reply

Who's side are you on:

By VERONIKA OLEKSYN, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 7, 7:08 AM ET

posted by Jenasis on February 7, 2007 at 7:40 AM | link to this | reply

Like Sunny, I try to stay on the side of sanity and reason...I am a

believer but that doesn't mean I condone the way some of them act.  I can distinguish between some good points they may write about, but that doesn't mean I support everything a person says on either side of the "two sides."  I guess ultimately, I try to be fair.

posted by Ariala on February 7, 2007 at 7:38 AM | link to this | reply

Gome

I think that kind of behavior is crazy.  I always try to stay on the side of the sane individuals....whatever be their religion or lack of.

I think it's just hard for some people to feel comfortable standing on their own two feet.

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on February 7, 2007 at 7:27 AM | link to this | reply